Filed: Jun. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND MANUEL L. REAL , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, which was filed on May 5, 2016. (Dkt. No. 15). This Court took the matter under submission on June 15, 2016. A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed in the federal court at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). The Ninth Circuit "strictly construe[s] the removal statute aga
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND MANUEL L. REAL , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, which was filed on May 5, 2016. (Dkt. No. 15). This Court took the matter under submission on June 15, 2016. A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed in the federal court at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). The Ninth Circuit "strictly construe[s] the removal statute agai..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, which was filed on May 5, 2016. (Dkt. No. 15). This Court took the matter under submission on June 15, 2016.
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed in the federal court at the time the complaint was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The Ninth Circuit "strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Id. Accordingly, federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance. Id.
Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the "well-pleaded complaint rule." Under that principle, subject matter jurisdiction is proper only when a federal question appears on the face of a complaint. See, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Once a basis for jurisdiction is established, such as a federal question, "the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy." 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Both in Plaintiff's Complaint, and in Plaintiff's post-removal First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's First Cause of Action is for the Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiff's remaining claims arise under state law, but all involve the same factual bases and occurrences. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misapplied credit charges, and misreported her credit worthiness.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act is unquestionably a federal law. Plaintiff's First Cause of Action is based on this act, and therefore this Court has federal question jurisdiction over it. See Williams, 482 U.S. at 392. As the remaining claims founded on state law are related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act Cause of Action, this Court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear all remaining issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As this Court does in fact have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Causes of Action, remand is not proper.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 15).
